read the article linked in my earlier post. There are plenty of sources that say that multiplicaton takes precedence over division - it's not just a "misleading guideline". According to the article, this is in fact the classical definition of mathematical order of precedence, which would make the answer 2.
read the article linked in my earlier post. There are plenty of sources that say that multiplicaton takes precedence over division - it's not just a "misleading guideline". According to the article, this is in fact the classical definition of mathematical order of precedence, which would make the answer 2.
Mathforum said:In summary, I would say that the rules actually fall into two
categories: the natural rules (such as precedence of exponential over
multiplicative over additive operations, and the meaning of
parentheses), and the artificial rules (left-to-right evaluation,
equal precedence for multiplication and division, and so on). The
former were present from the beginning of the notation, and probably
existed already, though in a somewhat different form, in the geometric
and verbal modes of expression that preceded algebraic symbolism. The
latter, not having any absolute reason for their acceptance, have had
to be gradually agreed upon through usage, and continue to evolve.
.99999999999999etc= .99999999999999etc
.9...=1
As a test, I calculated this while I was walking on my treadmill.
the answer is still 2.
Ergo:
.9999.....9 = 1
Therefore .9999.....89 = .9999.....9 = 1
Therefore .9899.....99 = .9999.....9 = 1
Therefore .9899.....98 = .9999.....9 = 1
(Skipping ahead a few)
Therefore .9889.....99 = .9999.....9 = 1
(Skipping ahead a bunch more)
Therefore .0000.....01 = .9999.....9 = 1
Therefore 0 = 1.
Just no.
All of those are finite so even the first one isn't true.
read the article linked in my earlier post. There are plenty of sources that say that multiplicaton takes precedence over division - it's not just a "misleading guideline".
There is still some development in this area, as we frequently hear
from students and teachers confused by texts that either teach or
imply that implicit multiplication (2x) takes precedence over
explicit multiplication and division (2*x, 2/x) in expressions
such as a/2b, which they would take as a/(2b), contrary to the
generally accepted rules. The idea of adding new rules like this
implies that the conventions are not yet completely stable; the
situation is not all that different from the 1600s.
I went with 2. Excel says 288.
It's the shitty way it's written. Once we got past grade 3, my math teachers almost never touched the divide symbol. Since you can't type denominators, it is often assumed that anything to the right of "/" or the divide symbol is part of the denominator.
Not really. You made the implied * explicit without doing so for the implied ().The master has spoken.
Except, the original equation doesn't have the extra set of (). If it had, then the answer is 2. You can't just go around adding shits in that aren't there and say "implied". It's either YES, or NO. ON or OFF. This is not a religion. It's not up for debate. It's not up to your "interpretation". Do you see an extra set of brackets in the original equation? NO!Not really. You made the implied * explicit without doing so for the implied ().
Plug the correct interpretation in:
48/(2*(9+3))
Not really. You made the implied * explicit without doing so for the implied ().
Plug the correct interpretation in:
48/(2*(9+3))
i can do even bigger font.so the answer people is. Without additional bracket(s) it's somewhat ambiguous!
The master has spoken.
So the answer people is. Without additional bracket(s) it's somewhat ambiguous!
i can do even bigger font.
There's nothing ambiguous about it. It's not there, it never existed. End of freaking story. Go back to school.